Background
Jonathon Perkins pleaded guilty after assaulting a former girlfriend and later kicking a correctional officer. His plea was entered with the stated expectation that the sentencing judge would consider a renewed Romero motion—a request to dismiss a prior serious or violent felony strike in the interest of justice—even though another judge had denied an earlier version of the motion.
The prosecution did not object when the renewed motion was discussed as part of the plea or when the sentencing court heard it. The court dismissed the strike and imposed a prison term of 27 years eight months. On appeal, the prosecution argued for the first time that one trial judge could not revisit the prior judge’s ruling and also argued that dismissing the strike was an abuse of discretion.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The prosecution forfeited its institutional-authority argument by failing to raise it in the trial court, where a timely objection would have allowed the sentencing judge to address the issue and the parties’ expectations before judgment. The ordinary preservation rule served both fairness and efficient correction of alleged error.
The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Romero ruling. The sentencing court considered Perkins’s criminal history, the seriousness of the current conduct, his background, and the purposes of the Three Strikes law rather than treating dismissal as automatic. A dissent would have reached the judge-reconsideration issue in the interest of orderly judicial administration, warning that allowing a second judge to revisit the question could encourage judge shopping.
Key Takeaways
- A party ordinarily forfeits even a serious sentencing objection by remaining silent when the trial court could have addressed it.
- Counsel should place any objection to a renewed Romero motion on the record before the plea and again at sentencing.
- A strike dismissal receives deferential review when the court weighs the defendant’s history, current offenses, and prospects.
- The dissent highlights an unresolved practical concern about routing renewed sentencing motions to a different judge.
Why It Matters
California criminal practitioners should treat the identity and authority of the sentencing judge as an issue that must be preserved, not saved for appeal. Prosecutors who believe a renewed motion is procedurally improper should object before the defendant enters a plea based on the expectation that it will be heard.
Defense counsel should make the plea record explicit and present a complete Romero record addressing why the defendant falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes scheme. The decision confirms that a reasoned exercise of sentencing discretion will be difficult to overturn even where another judge previously reached a different conclusion.
The preservation holding also affects how lawyers structure negotiated pleas. If consideration of a renewed sentencing motion is part of the bargain, the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and court should state whether the motion is authorized, whether the earlier ruling limits the new judge, and what happens if the motion is denied. A clear record reduces later disputes over reasonable expectations and makes any claimed legal error reviewable without speculation.
The majority and dissent agreed that orderly judicial administration matters but differed over whether that concern justified overlooking forfeiture. That division is useful to trial lawyers: reassignment should prompt an immediate discussion of prior discretionary rulings. A lawyer who waits to see the result risks losing the issue, while a timely objection lets the court return the matter to the first judge or explain why changed circumstances warrant a new decision.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket